San Mateo City Council opposes height measure

Councilmembers opposed extending the above height and density limits largely because they feel it would stifle the general plan update process, which is currently on hold due to COVID-19. A general plan is a city’s long-term vision for the future.

“The council has prioritized residents have their voices heard. The general plan process does that very well and the general plan process would be stifled if we had this measure pass,” said Mayor Joe Goethals at the meeting. “We want all residents voices to be heard.”

Councilwoman Diane Papan added Measure P would deprive residents of options while they form their vision for the future of the city.

“Measure P’s passage to me reflects that it may prematurely foreclose on options to achieve this community vision,” she said.

San Mateans for Responsive Government, the proponents of the proposed Measure P extension, took issue with the argument that extending Measure P would stifle the general plan process.   

“This concern is highly specious as it certainly did no such thing during the general plan process in either 1997 or 2010,” said Michael Weinhauer, spokesman for SMRG.

Weinhauer also argued Measure P is the only way to ensure the council does not go back on its promise to not make zoning changes before the completion of the general plan process.

“A critical flaw in their assurance that the council will not change any zoning between now and the completion of the updated general plan is that it is in no way legally binding,” Weinhauer said. “It is a decision that can be changed at any given council meeting — three votes and boom it’s done. The only true binding assurance would be an extension of Measure P.”

In 2018, Weinhauer’s group had collected 7,000 signatures, more than enough to place the extension on the ballot. The legality of the ballot language was called into question by a different group and the council held off on putting it on that ballot, which was a special election. Instead, the council hoped to negotiate a compromise initiative but that did not come to fruition, leading to the measure's discussion this year. A competing measure that aimed to exempt the areas around train stations from Measure P restrictions began a signature gathering effort earlier this year, but the proponents suspended their effort because signature gathering is impossible under social distancing requirements.

Weinhauer on behalf of SMRG urged the council to take a neutral position on the measure “rather than encumber it with any biases,” but the request was not heeded.

Responding to Weinhauer’s arguments, Deputy Mayor Eric Rodriguez said the current general plan update is much more robust than past ones.

“We’ve done these general plan updates in the past, but the one we’re attempting to do now is 10 times more thorough than anything we’ve attempted before,” Rodriguez said.

Rodriguez also said the council’s assurance that zoning changes won’t be made before the general plan process is complete should be trusted, and said any councilmember that attempts to backtrack on the promise should be recalled.

“If any of us break that commitment I’d actively encourage the electorate to vote that member out of office,” he said.

Other councilmembers described Measure P as stifling progress generally and being out of touch with current conditions.

“Freezing ourselves in time is actually a way of holding ourselves back and effectively moving backwards,” said Councilwoman Amourence Lee. “The task at hand is to evolve with the changing demographics, economy and transportation needs of the 21st century.”

Councilman Rick Bonilla agreed.

“I’ve never really agreed with these height and density limiting measures,” he said. “We are far into the 21st century now and yet we’re not building for the 21st century in my opinion. I believe we can do much better.”

zachary@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102